Talk:Shell game
Category removal Why was this removed from the "recreation" category? Is it not a recreational activity? --From Andoria with Love 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) :Far as I know it is. I leave it alone for now so that the user who removed the category can explain why, but if nothing is explained, I'll put it back. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) :I would point out that other gambling activities already at "Recreation" include Dabo, Blackjack, Chula, Craps, etc. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ::"The shell game represents it self as a gambling game, but in reality, it is a scam." ::The word "game" in the title is part of the scam. It is not a legitimate game, and it was never represented in the episode as one. (except to the Doctor, but he was the mark) It is not a recreational activity. --Bp 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) :::Perhaps it was not a recreational activity for The Doc, but it was for Paris and Neelix; they were doing it for fun at The Doctor's expense. It was never stated that any law or regulation was broken. I would suggest that it be restored to Recreation, or some other appropriate category. 31dot 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Setting aside they were not doing it for "fun", but to prove they still had con skills, being "fun" does not by itself make something a recreational activity. --Bp 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Well, they were trying to prove it because they had "fun" doing it. If they didn't derive fun from doing it they wouldn't have. Most defintions of recreation say that it is to provide enjoyment or amusement. 31dot 11:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC) ::Weak. Geordi had fun installing a plasma conduit in "Phantasms", but that is not recreation. Having fun doing something does not itself make it recreation. The objective of the Shell Game is not fun, but most often profit. In this rare case, where the objective was not profit, it was to demonstrate or practice a skill. The objective was never to have "fun". That it is also fun for Neelix and Paris in this case, is irrelevant. If everything that is also fun to do was in the recreation category, it would be the largest category of MA. Trek didn't keep us entertained for 40 years by watching them flying around doing dreadful chores. --Bp 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC) ::I respectfully disagree. The primary purpose of installing a plasma conduit is not to derive fun from it, even though it might be a side effect. The purpose of Neelix and Paris' game was to demonstrate a skill for fun. They wouldn't have wanted to demonstrate it if they didn't find it fun, as they had no other purpose in doing so. They weren't interested in profit, criminal activity, or anything else. They wanted a laugh at the Doctor's expense(and the Doc got a laugh back). However, I will agree to disagree. 31dot 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :::Perhaps you didn't watch the episode. They had just been conned by Dala and Mobar, and they wanted to test their own con skills because they believed they may have become soft. Not at all for fun, but out of worry. And more importantly, this rare case doesn't change the fact that the primary objective of the Shell Game nearly every time it is employed, is profit, not fun. --Bp 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC) :::I did watch it, and they were worried because it would no longer have been fun for them if they were soft at it. They found out that they weren't(originally) and took fun out of that. Also, this article does not talk about every instance of a shell game, it talks about this one specific one. This particular instance, perhaps 'rare' as you claim when compared to real life, is still the only one we see. Unless there are other instances in canon, we can only go by what is shown for purposes of MA. 31dot 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Category redux I see crimes was added back to this article- was it stated in the episode mentioned that what was done broke some sort of law or regulation?--31dot 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC) : *sigh* Why does it really matter? A shell game is a confidence game, which is by definition an "attempt to swindle a person which involves gaining his or her confidence." In other words: it's fraud. What is fraud categorized under? Thank you. --Alan 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :::I wasn't objecting to it, I was just curious as to the line of thinking. I would add that something can be fraud but not be illegal, as was seemingly done in this case, but I can still accept the category being there as a reference point.--31dot 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Long preamble Might there be a way to cut the preamble in half or more? --LauraCC (talk) 19:11, January 26, 2016 (UTC) :Make sure to limit it to facts stated on screen? -- Capricorn (talk) 22:00, January 26, 2016 (UTC) I have read the scene in a transcript, and it looks like everything documented there was illustrated in their playing of the game. I just thought it looked a little long for an introduction. --LauraCC (talk) 17:24, January 27, 2016 (UTC)